From 883518fdccd42e1a86f24e9ce5e7f40ae01d5d80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tersec Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 02:00:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] mention publicness of fee recipients (#5840) * mention publicness of fee recipients * grammar --- docs/the_nimbus_book/src/suggested-fee-recipient.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/docs/the_nimbus_book/src/suggested-fee-recipient.md b/docs/the_nimbus_book/src/suggested-fee-recipient.md index 7f3465f76..289eb3308 100644 --- a/docs/the_nimbus_book/src/suggested-fee-recipient.md +++ b/docs/the_nimbus_book/src/suggested-fee-recipient.md @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ For each validator, it selects from the first available, in the following order: For example, `nimbus_beacon_node --suggested-fee-recipient=0x70E47C843E0F6ab0991A3189c28F2957eb6d3842` suggests to the execution client that `0x70E47C843E0F6ab0991A3189c28F2957eb6d3842` might be the coinbase. If this Nimbus node has two validators, one of which has its own suggested fee recipient via the keymanager API and the other does not, the former would use its own per-validator suggested fee recipient, while the latter would fall back to `0x70E47C843E0F6ab0991A3189c28F2957eb6d3842`. +Fee recipients are recorded publicly on-chain as part of proposed blocks, so suggested fee recipients should allow for this. ## Command line